AMD Radeon HD 7950 Video Card Review @ [H]

John Vuong said:
Why would ATI price the 7950 cards lower than the GTX 580? At least this card is slightly faster than the GTX 580, it would have sucked if it weren't, yet another decent card from ATI.
Click to expand...

be careful.,. you are going to hurt some feelings. lol

**

It is currently priced perfectly in the performance per dollar segment. What rival card can beat it for cheaper?

If you are crying about the price just wait for the lesser cards to come out that are aimed for the "budget" crowd.


All these people with caviar taste buds and tuna fish wallets. Want a Ferrari but only want to pay Mustang pricing.
 
jbz7890 said:
In my opinion, AMD made a mistake by not clocking these higher out of the factory. It seems most consumers will pay far more attention to a card's stock speed than its maximum overclocked speed.
Click to expand...

there are no reference 7950's so they used a base clock to give the AIB's more room to say they have a huge overclock on their 7950's compared to what AMD is rating them at. or at least thats what it really looks like to me. hell it wouldn't surprise me if we see custom cards with a 1000mhz stock overclock on them like the 7970's.
 
robble said:
All these people with caviar taste buds and tuna fish wallets. Want a Ferrari but only want to pay Mustang pricing.
Click to expand...
Lol, I always use "champagne taste with a beer pocketbook," but I like that! I think you're seeing a lot of people spoiled by the last few years of heavy competition getting hit by the reality of the graphics market returning to previous levels.
 
I took the OC 7950 bench and compared it to the stock 7970..

Batman 2560x1600 FXAA 16AF
OC 7950 ( 1050, mem 6ghz) - avg – 46.3
7970 Stock – 43.7

Battlefield 3 2560x1600 – FXAA – 16XAF ULTRA
7950 OC – avg 54.7
7970 stock – 51.5

Deus EX : HR 2650x1600 FXAA High
7950 OC – 69.6
7970 stock – 66.2

Pretty much, for $100 less, you get a stock 7970.. and probably a lil more depending on when manufactures release there OC versions or twin frzr or whatever they are going to call em. And like I said with the 7970, it's priced where it belongs.. you can cry and bad-mouth AMD all you want, but they are just pricing it against the competition.. slighty faster than a 580 GTX but cheaper. Now, if the 580 goes down in price, and AMD doesn't lower theirs accordingly, than I can see it being an issue..
 
Last edited:
robble said:
be careful.,. you are going to hurt some feelings. lol

**

It is currently priced perfectly in the performance per dollar segment. What rival card can beat it for cheaper?

If you are crying about the price just wait for the lesser cards to come out that are aimed for the "budget" crowd.


All these people with caviar taste buds and tuna fish wallets. Want a Ferrari but only want to pay Mustang pricing.
Click to expand...

LOL, perfect price point @ 50 bucks less than the 7970 for that much of a performance difference?

Re read the last few lines in the review and the comment under the silver award for this card and keep thinking that.....
 
While I think the price is higher than I had hoped it is still priced about right..the current price gouging notwithstanding.

If you want the latest and the fastest (or 2nd fastest in this case) there's a price premium attached to those bragging rights. Has little to do with how much faster it is over the competition. You want the fastest be ready to open your wallet.

No doubt prices will come down once GK-104 makes an appearance. I'm looking at $400 as the sweet spot for these 7950s. I'm already feeling the pinch of my 1280Mb Nvidia card and I'm only running single monitor @1080p. The 3Gb will be a welcomed upgrade.
 
robble said:
All these people with caviar taste buds and tuna fish wallets. Want a Ferrari but only want to pay Mustang pricing.
Click to expand...
It's called a Corvette, 90% of the Ferrari performance for 25% of the price. Last generation it was the 6950 and I think a lot of people were hoping the 7950 would carry on the tradition of being a good "bang for the buck" card...turns out it's not. In fact it's a worse bang for the buck than the 7970.
 
amdgamer said:
I don't understand why some of you are complaining about the price. There is absolutely no need to price a card lower than what they need to do so in order to sell it.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct. It is priced perfectly in terms of performance and there really shouldn't be any argument at all regarding that. Both of them are performing better than the competition. You can't compare them to what Nvidia is about to release since it's not released. I think we all know the problem of rumor based on unreleased products vs. what's currently available. However AMD has a problem and I think Kyle is holding AMD's feet to the fire on it and that's software developer support. Everyone from across the globe keeps on communicating this, but I don't know if they are listening.

There is no question that AMD can do some impressive things hardware wise (Eyefinity and power consumption). There's value in those two things no doubt about it. But if AMD is going to charge Nvidia prices, then it better not only beat them in terms of performance. They also need to beat Nvidia in terms of quality with relation to what games work well, and those that don't.

In the end it doesn't matter if TWIMTP gives Nvidia the edge. Not everyone is political about their purchases. There's MORE THAN ENOUGH rope to hang Carmack on Rage. But at the end of the day which manufacturer had more problems and which one had fewer? Don't get me wrong Nvidia has problems when new games are released too, but how many of them exist and how quick did Nvidia fix them?

If I was AMD and knew Rage was coming, f--k I would have been up Carmack's ass so deep I could wipe his ass from the inside while making chicken salad in time for dinner. He wouldn't have to ask for help with compatibility test results, they would have been done for him. If Rage was the only title where AMD had problems you could let them slide, but there's more than that now and way more when you include xFire and it's starting to get a little out of hand.

This support of software development problem has reared it's ugly head not just in Windows, but in Linux too (a place where there isn't a boundary for committing fixes or aiding in development directly). AMD in Linux has lagged Nvidia with providing video acceleration support. Over the past year or so it finally offered it, but Nvidia had it for years before. Same goes for it's CPU's. When there is software development support BD becomes competitive much more so than without it.

Regardless of the problems with Batman or Rage or whatever game, the hardware reviewers will use whatever game they see fit. So, AMD has a choice. They either make sure their hardware performs well (xFire included) or they don't. Either way they will reap what they sow good or bad. If they want to go the open source road fine by me, but if that's going to be the case then I should see logos everywhere and physical performance related to the work they are doing there.

I really love AMD, they do some really good stuff and they have given us much in the way on how we game at good prices generally. The 7950 and 7970 are good cards they beat the competition's previous generation in terms of price and performance, but just like caring for a kid that's what they are supposed to do. You don't get kudos for doing what you are supposed to do. If they are going to leave the value position then the hardware and the price can't be the only things that do.
 
Last edited:
Kueller said:
It's called a Corvette, 90% of the Ferrari performance for 25% of the price. Last generation it was the 6950 and I think a lot of people were hoping the 7950 would carry on the tradition of being a good "bang for the buck" card...turns out it's not. In fact it's a worse bang for the buck than the 7970.
Click to expand...

But they aren't giving you 90% of the performance. They are giving you 100% of performance and 100% of the price compared to the competition. Until Nvidia releases their cards, there is no Ferrari to compare it to.
 
Fun review to read, felt like I was experiencing the card myself, that is how good this review really is.

I thought, hmmm maybe the setup had some restrictions for the sub par CFX results, maybe a 8x 8x pcie CFXconfiguration where AMD has to transfer all the frame data to a single card - NOPE! The ASUS motherboard should have been in a 16x 16x configuration.

CPU - A well OC 2600K.

For single card usage I can see no big reason to bother with a Nvidia card in this price range. Now for Surround/Eyefinity gaming it looks like Nvidia is the way to go period!

The CFX results showing the severe up/down fps or sporadic frame rates which reviewers can sense is a rather big dissappointment which CFX is still needed I think for serious gaming at Eyefinity resolutions and good IQ. I hope it is just a driver level issue and not a design or hardware issue causing this.

The price compared to the current competition for single card use is good especially if a 1.5gb version comes out under $400 beating the 580 still in performance for $100 less. The price compared to the 7970 of $100 seems actually good, the price on the internet for these cards approaching $500 is not, even if tricked out the 7970 if oc will probably be a better buy. My opinion.

Now for the reviewers, I heard there was a problem with Eyefinity when there is a mismatch between the outputs of the card, as in 2 DP plus one DVI connection used. As in causing a line down one monitor (not in sync in other words). Was there this issue with the 7950 when doing this review?
 
Crazy Chuckster said:
LOL, perfect price point @ 50 bucks less than the 7970 for that much of a performance difference?
Click to expand...

you were saying what about performance difference?... (and it's $100 not $50)


heatthegreat said:
I took the OC 7950 bench and compared it to the stock 7970..

Batman 2560x1600 FXAA 16AF
OC 7950 ( 1050, mem 6ghz) - avg – 46.3
7970 Stock – 43.7

Battlefield 3 2560x1600 – FXAA – 16XAF ULTRA
7950 OC – avg 54.7
7970 stock – 51.5

Deus EX : HR 2650x1600 FXAA High
7950 OC – 69.6
7970 stock – 66.2
Click to expand...

The performance and price difference you are talking about will come with the "budget" 7xxx cards coming out ove the new few weeks/months or perhaps a current 6950/70 card - lots of used ones for sale now.. You could always wait for Keplar and whine when it's as/more expensive as this.

***


kac77 said:
But they aren't giving you 90% of the performance. They are giving you 100% of performance and 100% of the price compared to the competition. Until Nvidia releases their cards, there is no Ferrari to compare it to.
Click to expand...

In some cases AMD is giving you 105% of the performance for 90% of the cost compared to the 580.


**

Slam on crossfire drivers if you want. I run single card and they work just fine for me. I have neither the wallet for 2 Ferrari's nor the Autobahn (multi-monitor) to run them on. I'm quite happy with a solid 60fps with vsyn on at 1080p resolutions.
 
Last edited:
robble said:
you were saying what about performance difference?...

In some cases AMD is giving you 105% of the performance for 90% of the cost compared to the 580.
Click to expand...
You realize the 7970 can overclock too, right? The problem is that generally, as you proceed towards the mid-range, the price/performance of cards usually goes up. In this case, it really doesn't, and if you look at what else is sacrificed on the cards (cooling, etc.), the value goes down further.
 
Mr. K6 said:
You realize the 7970 can overclock too, right?
Click to expand...

look at my sig and re-think your question. If you are o/c'ing a 7970 right now you've already answered the question of "is it worth it to me?" Especially after slapping on a $100+ waterblock. I'm saying the pricing is fair for the performance and I've backed that statement up with my debit card. If the 7950 had come out first I'd probably have one of those.

You can still get better than stock 7970 performance for $100 less. That ain't happening with a nvida card right now.

Mr. K6 said:
In this case, it really doesn't, and if you look at what else is sacrificed on the cards (cooling, etc.), the value goes down further.
Click to expand...

You want to talk about the bleeding edge and VALUE in the same paragraph?
 
Last edited:
Hmm personally I would have gone with a small nudge on base clocks to 850 instead of 800, just to ensure a consistently better single card performance experience vs the 580. As it is now, the comparison is very meh, and the 580 actually offers better performance in a few cases, specially with MSAA//tessellation.

I mean, 10% less bandwidth and 10% less shaders i can understand, but those 13.5% less core clocks went a wee bit too less for the impression that i would have wanted to bring if i was a marketter.

Yes, i see that it can be overclocked nicely and the multiple type of blowers will make this interesting to say the least, but damn, first impressions mean a lot! ugh... (The card is fine, i just thought that it is another opportunity lost by AMD as they could have made an easy statement)
 
Kueller said:
It's called a Corvette, 90% of the Ferrari performance for 25% of the price. Last generation it was the 6950 and I think a lot of people were hoping the 7950 would carry on the tradition of being a good "bang for the buck" card...turns out it's not. In fact it's a worse bang for the buck than the 7970.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The competition for the 7950 isn't the 580 it's the 7970, the price on the 7970 is fine because it's the top card right now but the 7950 is a second tier card and should have a better price/performance ratio. I don't really need anything more than my 6950 for 1080p right now, it would be nice to be able to turn up a few settings in a couple of games that I can't max but it's not worth $460+.

One thing I noticed looking at the benchmarks was that the 7950 got very low min fps several times, I know it was just a few dips(more like crashes) here and there but fps dips can be very annoying. An odd thing I noticed regarding that was in the DA2 bench it got very low mins at 1200p with AA but didn't in the apples to apples benchmark at 1600p without AA, it makes me wonder if AA is causing some of those dips.
 
heatthegreat said:
I took the OC 7950 bench and compared it to the stock 7970..

Batman 2560x1600 FXAA 16AF
OC 7950 ( 1050, mem 6ghz) - avg – 46.3
7970 Stock – 43.7

Battlefield 3 2560x1600 – FXAA – 16XAF ULTRA
7950 OC – avg 54.7
7970 stock – 51.5

Deus EX : HR 2650x1600 FXAA High
7950 OC – 69.6
7970 stock – 66.2

Pretty much, for $100 less, you get a stock 7970.. and probably a lil more depending on when manufactures release there OC versions or twin frzr or whatever they are going to call em. And like I said with the 7970, it's priced where it belongs.. you can cry and bad-mouth AMD all you want, but they are just pricing it against the competition.. slighty faster than a 580 GTX but cheaper. Now, if the 580 goes down in price, and AMD doesn't lower theirs accordingly, than I can see it being an issue..
Click to expand...

Don't worry. A lot of kids here, and even many adults, didn't even bother to take Economics in high school (or college), so they don't understand the basic laws of supply and demand, and how competition works. They think that the video card companies are doing THEM a favor or something...

Word to the kids (and the uneducated adults in this thread):
If you EVER decide to start a company to sell product, you ALWAYS PRICE WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR, to MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFITS while keeping customers returning (provided you remain profitable and keep making a competitive product).
 
I noticed that you guys had used dual crossfire bridges.

Is that actually required/necessary for 2-way crossfire?
 
Igg said:
I noticed that you guys had used dual crossfire bridges.

Is that actually required/necessary for 2-way crossfire?
Click to expand...

No it's not. If G is the number of GPUs you need G - 1 CrossFire bridges. So one bridge for two, two for three, etc.
 
Before, AMD was pricing its cards low because it did not have the flagship, so it had to compete on price/performance. The 4870, 5870, and 6970 are all examples of that. We, the consumers, have been spoiled after getting used to the good prices.

I agree with Falkentyne, AMD doesn't choose a price in order to do the consumer a favor, it tries to do itself a favor by charging the amount where profits per unit and overall number of units combine to give the highest overall profit. What [H] and the people in this thread are saying, at its core, is that what's best for the corporation isn't always best for the people. In the end though it's not AMD's fault, it's both AMD and nVidia's fault for not waging a price war and nVidia's fault for not releasing Kepler. But it sounds like GK104 is going to give around 7950 level performance so this will all change soon.
 
I would pick one of these up for 399.99 or less. I Think [H] is right on the pricing. I'm not big money by no means but I would hold out for anoughter 100 bucks to pick up the 7970. Why would I want to spend less to OC somthing to just the same speed as the top card for a 100 bucks less. When I can save up a little more money and pick up the 7970 and OC the crap out of it. Or pick up a used 580 for 100 bucks cheaper. The pricing just doesn't make any sence to me. They need to drop it at least a 50-100 bucks. I think you can tell as Newegg still has stock in all it's 7950's right now.
 
Falkentyne said:
Don't worry. A lot of kids here, and even many adults, didn't even bother to take Economics in high school (or college), so they don't understand the basic laws of supply and demand, and how competition works. They think that the video card companies are doing THEM a favor or something...

Word to the kids (and the uneducated adults in this thread):
If you EVER decide to start a company to sell product, you ALWAYS PRICE WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR, to MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFITS while keeping customers returning (provided you remain profitable and keep making a competitive product).
Click to expand...

Thats fine and all, but AMD hurt their previous image as good bang for the buck that was going for them all the way back to the 3800 series. That may hurt them in the long run.

AMD undercut Nvidia with both the 4800 and 5800 series. That is more then enough reason for people to think these prices are too high.
 
Great review. Just wish this was $50 cheaper....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
harmattan said:
Great review. Just wish this was $50 cheaper....
Click to expand...

Wait a few weeks and buy the 7950 with 1.5bg that is $50 cheaper.

Not sure why people expect better prices? It's the same price as a 580 GTX, yet its faster and overclocks better as well?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good review... Kind of want to wait to see what Nvidia comes up with next. I guess the big question, is what is the happy sweet spot as far as money and performance is concerned, at this very point in time?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KickAssCop said:
Either way, seems quite clear that the pricing is completely borked for this card and definitely not worth the $450 investment considering you can get a used GTX 580 for $350 that performs either on par or slightly lower.

EDIT: Seems like a typo since all charts say 6950 but conclusion says 6970... :confused:
Click to expand...


$350 used is where the GTX 580 should be. Actually, I'm thinking $300. That's a lot of heat & power that I don't want; and if I had to put up with it, I'd want the card much cheaper.

Actually, used prices are dictated by new card prices, not vice-versa.
I'd bet the sellers of the used GTX 580's know that the new prices are dropping ($450 new after rebate). So $350 is fair even compared to new prices.

Despite the huge increase in performance, I too am bothered by the new $450 MSRP for the "mid" high card.
Didn't the 6970 & 6950 msrp for $350/$250?

So we have a year later and they're still $350/$250?
shouldn't they be dropping the prices and discontinuing the cards and replacing them with the 7950/6950?
 
Great review.. and I agree completely with the statement you guy left right beneath the reward stamp... at 399.99 I would buy this card in a heartbeat. 59 days left.
 
I agree that $399 is perfect price.
Perhaps they are pricing this too high because they are expecting a massive price drop with the release of Kepler.
 
Ha, I just don't understand why this price point is so bad, especially for launch. The GTX 580 (1.5GB version) is still more expensive in most cases. Current 3GB 580s are the same price as 7970. Plus it's a solid $100 cheaper than the 7970. You can't really take used cards into consideration, as I imagine in 6 months used 7950/7970 will be discounted as well. Once the 580 drops in price this card surely will too.
 
Great review. You guys, you guys are getting prettttty good at this shit! Thanks

Whaaaaat is up with prices indeed. Move them around please. Anyway, not moving until I see a response from nvidia.
 
Good informative review!

While I never really ran into too many CF issues, releasing flagship products with beta drivers for so long is just completely unacceptable.

This needs fixing bad! If the drivers were up to date, I don't think people would worry so much about the pricing. (hint, hint)
 
I skipped to the summary because I'm at work and have to keep busy, but I just have to chime in and give kudos for a great review. Even just reading the last page, there was such a good mix of depth and variety in the comparisons made, and the tone of clear-eyed, even-handed judgment of strengths and weaknesses was perfect. One page and I know everything about the 7950 I would ever need to know.

A+!
 
Another great review and another great card from amd.

It seems amd has a great lineup with their 7000 series (except the mid low end rebrand)

These cards are really wolves in sheep clothings. Anyone getting these cards and not ocing em are simply mad.

An amd card having trouble in a nvidia sponsored game ? What a surprise!

Maybe you guyz will be able to use Aptive supersampling in skyrim on the 1.4 patch when its out.
Beta patch makes it run 50% faster than vanilla in most places.

Any word on when the next 7000 cards are comming out ?
 
should have been $299 like when the 6950 launched. or even the 4870
 
I really wish AMD would get their shit together when it comes to driver/X-Fire support. These cards are expensive... and yet if I pay that price premium for the "privilege" of owning one today, I will still likely have to wait until March before a non-beta driver is released?! WTF?!?!

Oh, and I confess, as long as I've been reading reviews here at the [H], I still was a bit skeptical about how many a GPU comparison in recent times has noted how "framerate doesn't tell the whole story." That is until I built a new system with a 6990 a few months ago and experienced the effect firsthand. If you're only skimming these GPU articles and just looking at "average framerate," you get the sense that AMD wins a lot of shootouts outright. That simply isn't the case though because even though their hardware may be extremely capable, something is going on with the drivers/X-fire support where the framerates can look good in terms of average, but is really fluctuating all over the place and making for a very inconsistent gameplay experience. That is exactly what I've experienced with my 6990 as well and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't pretty annoyed by that fact.

Bottom line, you just don't feel like you're getting your money's worth when spend big bucks and STILL have to deal with gameplay that isn't butter smooth on a brand new system.
 
Brent/Kyle- EXCELLENT review! Thanks for all the work you guys put in to give us the best info to base our decisions off of. Great card too- just wish it was $399. At that price, I'd seriously consider selling my 6850s and trying to grab one :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top